How to highlight ctags generated by Universal Ctags in Vim?
The only plugin I found that highlights ctags is TagHighlight that uses Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags seems abandoned and I think it is generally concluded that Universal-Ctags is a better choice.
Is it possible to use Universal Ctags to highlight user-defined types in Vim (for example objects)?
There should be a manual way to do this, but I couldn't found anything.
I use Neovim.
vim ctags vim-syntax-highlighting neovim
asked Nov 14 '18 at 4:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
add a comment |
The only plugin I found that highlights ctags is TagHighlight that uses Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags seems abandoned and I think it is generally concluded that Universal-Ctags is a better choice.
Is it possible to use Universal Ctags to highlight user-defined types in Vim (for example objects)?
There should be a manual way to do this, but I couldn't found anything.
I use Neovim.
vim ctags vim-syntax-highlighting neovim
asked Nov 14 '18 at 4:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
add a comment |
The only plugin I found that highlights ctags is TagHighlight that uses Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags seems abandoned and I think it is generally concluded that Universal-Ctags is a better choice.
Is it possible to use Universal Ctags to highlight user-defined types in Vim (for example objects)?
There should be a manual way to do this, but I couldn't found anything.
I use Neovim.
vim ctags vim-syntax-highlighting neovim
asked Nov 14 '18 at 4:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
The only plugin I found that highlights ctags is TagHighlight that uses Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags seems abandoned and I think it is generally concluded that Universal-Ctags is a better choice.
Is it possible to use Universal Ctags to highlight user-defined types in Vim (for example objects)?
There should be a manual way to do this, but I couldn't found anything.
I use Neovim.
vim ctags vim-syntax-highlighting neovim
vim ctags vim-syntax-highlighting neovim
asked Nov 14 '18 at 4:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
asked Nov 14 '18 at 4:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
edited Nov 14 '18 at 10:32
rect0x51
asked Nov 14 '18 at 4:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
asked Nov 14 '18 at 4:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
asked Nov 14 '18 at 4:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
4017
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Just because TagHighlight hasn't published new versions in recent years doesn't mean that the plugin does work any longer. The last activity on Bitbucket was one year ago; it may very well just be a mature plugin. Vim's API is very stable, and backwards compatibility is very important to Bram, so you can still use a plugin even if there's no active maintainer any longer.
The easytags plugin also hasn't seen updates in quite some time, but I still use it, and it offers the requested functionality via a :HighlightTags command, although its main purpose is automated updating of tags.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 7:47
Ingo KarkatIngo Karkat
132k14148198
I didn't say anything negative about TagHighlight other than the fact that it needs Exuberant Ctags and doesn't work (as far as I can tell) with Universal Ctags. The "outdated" part was meant for Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:53
I think my question is fair, since I am trying to find a solution that works with Universal Ctags. If there is non, I will consider using Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:56
1
Oh, I misattributed the abandoned part to the plugin itself. Easytags plugin uses Exuberant ctags by default (or basically anything namedctagsfound in the PATH), but can be configured to use a different tool. As long as the invocation and output is compatible, I think this shouldn't be an issue.
– Ingo Karkat
Nov 14 '18 at 10:27
I'll try to get it to work, and post back. Thanks.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 10:30
1
@rect0x51 Universal Ctags should be almost drop-in replacement for Exuberant Ctags, so it should work OOtB.
– Hauleth
Nov 14 '18 at 10:41
add a comment |
I finally got it to work (there was a slight caveat).
vim-easytags has a version checking functionality which basically matching the output of ctags --version command with some regex in order to extract a version number. For some reason, when using Universal Ctags, that output is:
Universal Ctags 0.0.0(45968eff), Copyright (C) 2015 Universal Ctags Team
Universal Ctags is derived from Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags 5.8, Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Darren Hiebert
...
The regex mistakes the version for 0.0.0.
There are several solution, among which:
- Disable the version check entirely
- Make the regex more robust
- Rewrite the version check to account for Universal Ctags too
I am happy with option 1.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53293215%2fhow-to-highlight-ctags-generated-by-universal-ctags-in-vim%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Just because TagHighlight hasn't published new versions in recent years doesn't mean that the plugin does work any longer. The last activity on Bitbucket was one year ago; it may very well just be a mature plugin. Vim's API is very stable, and backwards compatibility is very important to Bram, so you can still use a plugin even if there's no active maintainer any longer.
The easytags plugin also hasn't seen updates in quite some time, but I still use it, and it offers the requested functionality via a :HighlightTags command, although its main purpose is automated updating of tags.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 7:47
Ingo KarkatIngo Karkat
132k14148198
I didn't say anything negative about TagHighlight other than the fact that it needs Exuberant Ctags and doesn't work (as far as I can tell) with Universal Ctags. The "outdated" part was meant for Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:53
I think my question is fair, since I am trying to find a solution that works with Universal Ctags. If there is non, I will consider using Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:56
1
Oh, I misattributed the abandoned part to the plugin itself. Easytags plugin uses Exuberant ctags by default (or basically anything namedctagsfound in the PATH), but can be configured to use a different tool. As long as the invocation and output is compatible, I think this shouldn't be an issue.
– Ingo Karkat
Nov 14 '18 at 10:27
I'll try to get it to work, and post back. Thanks.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 10:30
1
@rect0x51 Universal Ctags should be almost drop-in replacement for Exuberant Ctags, so it should work OOtB.
– Hauleth
Nov 14 '18 at 10:41
add a comment |
Just because TagHighlight hasn't published new versions in recent years doesn't mean that the plugin does work any longer. The last activity on Bitbucket was one year ago; it may very well just be a mature plugin. Vim's API is very stable, and backwards compatibility is very important to Bram, so you can still use a plugin even if there's no active maintainer any longer.
The easytags plugin also hasn't seen updates in quite some time, but I still use it, and it offers the requested functionality via a :HighlightTags command, although its main purpose is automated updating of tags.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 7:47
Ingo KarkatIngo Karkat
132k14148198
I didn't say anything negative about TagHighlight other than the fact that it needs Exuberant Ctags and doesn't work (as far as I can tell) with Universal Ctags. The "outdated" part was meant for Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:53
I think my question is fair, since I am trying to find a solution that works with Universal Ctags. If there is non, I will consider using Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:56
1
Oh, I misattributed the abandoned part to the plugin itself. Easytags plugin uses Exuberant ctags by default (or basically anything namedctagsfound in the PATH), but can be configured to use a different tool. As long as the invocation and output is compatible, I think this shouldn't be an issue.
– Ingo Karkat
Nov 14 '18 at 10:27
I'll try to get it to work, and post back. Thanks.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 10:30
1
@rect0x51 Universal Ctags should be almost drop-in replacement for Exuberant Ctags, so it should work OOtB.
– Hauleth
Nov 14 '18 at 10:41
add a comment |
Just because TagHighlight hasn't published new versions in recent years doesn't mean that the plugin does work any longer. The last activity on Bitbucket was one year ago; it may very well just be a mature plugin. Vim's API is very stable, and backwards compatibility is very important to Bram, so you can still use a plugin even if there's no active maintainer any longer.
The easytags plugin also hasn't seen updates in quite some time, but I still use it, and it offers the requested functionality via a :HighlightTags command, although its main purpose is automated updating of tags.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 7:47
Ingo KarkatIngo Karkat
132k14148198
Just because TagHighlight hasn't published new versions in recent years doesn't mean that the plugin does work any longer. The last activity on Bitbucket was one year ago; it may very well just be a mature plugin. Vim's API is very stable, and backwards compatibility is very important to Bram, so you can still use a plugin even if there's no active maintainer any longer.
The easytags plugin also hasn't seen updates in quite some time, but I still use it, and it offers the requested functionality via a :HighlightTags command, although its main purpose is automated updating of tags.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 7:47
Ingo KarkatIngo Karkat
132k14148198
answered Nov 14 '18 at 7:47
Ingo KarkatIngo Karkat
132k14148198
answered Nov 14 '18 at 7:47
Ingo KarkatIngo Karkat
132k14148198
answered Nov 14 '18 at 7:47
Ingo KarkatIngo Karkat
132k14148198
132k14148198
I didn't say anything negative about TagHighlight other than the fact that it needs Exuberant Ctags and doesn't work (as far as I can tell) with Universal Ctags. The "outdated" part was meant for Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:53
I think my question is fair, since I am trying to find a solution that works with Universal Ctags. If there is non, I will consider using Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:56
1
Oh, I misattributed the abandoned part to the plugin itself. Easytags plugin uses Exuberant ctags by default (or basically anything namedctagsfound in the PATH), but can be configured to use a different tool. As long as the invocation and output is compatible, I think this shouldn't be an issue.
– Ingo Karkat
Nov 14 '18 at 10:27
I'll try to get it to work, and post back. Thanks.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 10:30
1
@rect0x51 Universal Ctags should be almost drop-in replacement for Exuberant Ctags, so it should work OOtB.
– Hauleth
Nov 14 '18 at 10:41
add a comment |
I didn't say anything negative about TagHighlight other than the fact that it needs Exuberant Ctags and doesn't work (as far as I can tell) with Universal Ctags. The "outdated" part was meant for Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:53
I think my question is fair, since I am trying to find a solution that works with Universal Ctags. If there is non, I will consider using Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:56
1
Oh, I misattributed the abandoned part to the plugin itself. Easytags plugin uses Exuberant ctags by default (or basically anything namedctagsfound in the PATH), but can be configured to use a different tool. As long as the invocation and output is compatible, I think this shouldn't be an issue.
– Ingo Karkat
Nov 14 '18 at 10:27
I'll try to get it to work, and post back. Thanks.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 10:30
1
@rect0x51 Universal Ctags should be almost drop-in replacement for Exuberant Ctags, so it should work OOtB.
– Hauleth
Nov 14 '18 at 10:41
I didn't say anything negative about TagHighlight other than the fact that it needs Exuberant Ctags and doesn't work (as far as I can tell) with Universal Ctags. The "outdated" part was meant for Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:53
I didn't say anything negative about TagHighlight other than the fact that it needs Exuberant Ctags and doesn't work (as far as I can tell) with Universal Ctags. The "outdated" part was meant for Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:53
I think my question is fair, since I am trying to find a solution that works with Universal Ctags. If there is non, I will consider using Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:56
I think my question is fair, since I am trying to find a solution that works with Universal Ctags. If there is non, I will consider using Exuberant Ctags.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 9:56
1
1
Oh, I misattributed the abandoned part to the plugin itself. Easytags plugin uses Exuberant ctags by default (or basically anything named
ctags found in the PATH), but can be configured to use a different tool. As long as the invocation and output is compatible, I think this shouldn't be an issue.– Ingo Karkat
Nov 14 '18 at 10:27
Oh, I misattributed the abandoned part to the plugin itself. Easytags plugin uses Exuberant ctags by default (or basically anything named
ctags found in the PATH), but can be configured to use a different tool. As long as the invocation and output is compatible, I think this shouldn't be an issue.– Ingo Karkat
Nov 14 '18 at 10:27
I'll try to get it to work, and post back. Thanks.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 10:30
I'll try to get it to work, and post back. Thanks.
– rect0x51
Nov 14 '18 at 10:30
1
1
@rect0x51 Universal Ctags should be almost drop-in replacement for Exuberant Ctags, so it should work OOtB.
– Hauleth
Nov 14 '18 at 10:41
@rect0x51 Universal Ctags should be almost drop-in replacement for Exuberant Ctags, so it should work OOtB.
– Hauleth
Nov 14 '18 at 10:41
add a comment |
I finally got it to work (there was a slight caveat).
vim-easytags has a version checking functionality which basically matching the output of ctags --version command with some regex in order to extract a version number. For some reason, when using Universal Ctags, that output is:
Universal Ctags 0.0.0(45968eff), Copyright (C) 2015 Universal Ctags Team
Universal Ctags is derived from Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags 5.8, Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Darren Hiebert
...
The regex mistakes the version for 0.0.0.
There are several solution, among which:
- Disable the version check entirely
- Make the regex more robust
- Rewrite the version check to account for Universal Ctags too
I am happy with option 1.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
add a comment |
I finally got it to work (there was a slight caveat).
vim-easytags has a version checking functionality which basically matching the output of ctags --version command with some regex in order to extract a version number. For some reason, when using Universal Ctags, that output is:
Universal Ctags 0.0.0(45968eff), Copyright (C) 2015 Universal Ctags Team
Universal Ctags is derived from Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags 5.8, Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Darren Hiebert
...
The regex mistakes the version for 0.0.0.
There are several solution, among which:
- Disable the version check entirely
- Make the regex more robust
- Rewrite the version check to account for Universal Ctags too
I am happy with option 1.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
add a comment |
I finally got it to work (there was a slight caveat).
vim-easytags has a version checking functionality which basically matching the output of ctags --version command with some regex in order to extract a version number. For some reason, when using Universal Ctags, that output is:
Universal Ctags 0.0.0(45968eff), Copyright (C) 2015 Universal Ctags Team
Universal Ctags is derived from Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags 5.8, Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Darren Hiebert
...
The regex mistakes the version for 0.0.0.
There are several solution, among which:
- Disable the version check entirely
- Make the regex more robust
- Rewrite the version check to account for Universal Ctags too
I am happy with option 1.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
I finally got it to work (there was a slight caveat).
vim-easytags has a version checking functionality which basically matching the output of ctags --version command with some regex in order to extract a version number. For some reason, when using Universal Ctags, that output is:
Universal Ctags 0.0.0(45968eff), Copyright (C) 2015 Universal Ctags Team
Universal Ctags is derived from Exuberant Ctags.
Exuberant Ctags 5.8, Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Darren Hiebert
...
The regex mistakes the version for 0.0.0.
There are several solution, among which:
- Disable the version check entirely
- Make the regex more robust
- Rewrite the version check to account for Universal Ctags too
I am happy with option 1.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
answered Nov 14 '18 at 11:30
rect0x51rect0x51
4017
4017
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53293215%2fhow-to-highlight-ctags-generated-by-universal-ctags-in-vim%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
